The Sound of Settled Science

[JoeB131]

We'll be all dead from another 0.15DegC change in the MASTemperature in 12 years? Get a fucking grip or INVEST some research on your own.. You know virtually nothing about the projections or the scientific claims for GW futures...

Again, matter of scale. I'll probably be dead by the time it has an effect. That wasn't the point being made at all....

the point is, it is a problem, we need to do something about it..

 

[SSDD]

Your storage capacity of CO2 is less than .003ns. This means its ability is so limited it is to be near zero in the gas form.

You're digging yourself a deeper hole.. Heat storage is not measured in nanoseconds. And there is NO TIME LIMIT that would be quoted like for heat energy retention because it would have many parameters determining WHEN the molecule could lose the acquired the heat energy from a photon absorption.. Like random KINETIC collisions or which band of IR it absorbed..

Please stop.. It's embarrassing...

Your talking ENTROPY not storage... Your conflating the time it takes heat to leave the earths atmosphere and the energy stored by a molecule. They are very different things..

Sorry Flac... On this one your wrong.

No sources. No discussion.. You're making me uncomfortable, but not informing me of ANYTHING I can square with the Chemistry and Physics that I understand.. You can certainly CLAIM you're right, but you've not won a single honesty point here...

"storage" means that it can be accessed at any time, despite the surrounding conditions.

Does CO2 store energy and retain it?

No...

It must re-emit the photon or lose its energy via collision within the time the photon resides before the dipole moment of the molecule expels it. This is not storage. You cant access it at will and it is time dependent due to the molecules make up.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/energy-transfer-rate

You're confused. There is no LONGTERM BULK STORAGE required for the GHouse effect or with regard to ANY of the gases that make up the same..

That's because the Earth is CONSTANTLY emitting and LOSING heat energy to the sky via IR and convection. It does this every hour/minute/second/nanosec of the day.. The atmos layer in which these GH gases resides only RETARDS that loss of heat. And as the concentration of GH gases INCLUDING water vapor increases, there is incrementally LESS going to the heavens and MORE being back-radiated/reflected/mirrored to the surface.

That not only causes new surface temp equilibriums, but the INSTANTANEOUS temperature of the troposphere where the bulk of these gases reside also increase in temperature because of the ability to retain that intercepted IR for however SHORT the residence time is... BECAUSE this is happening CONSTANTLY -- and ALL day and ALL night.. More GH gas -- the more heat RESIDES in those atmos layers.

Not "stored" as tho it's an energy tank with a spigot on it... The only efficient long term STORAGE of heat ANYWHERE on the planet is in the oceans or at the core.. And the oceans do not benefit from back-radiated IR as much as it does down-radiated total solar irradiance.

GH gasses do not retard energy movement via conduction and conduction is the primary mode of energy movement through the troposphere...You mention IR and convection, but fail to mention the primary mode of energy movement in the troposphere...why is that?

And there is no back radiation any more than there is back conduction or back convection...the simple fact is that CO2 can not hold energy beyond a fraction of a nanosecond unless it is in liquid form.

 

[JoeB131]

Hundreds of billions to the oil companies, or 76 TRILLION dollars to the global warming fraudsters.

Yes, who benefits

You are hoist on your own petard of idiocy.

Yeah, you know what, you guys saying "It's too expensive to save the planet" is a bit much.

Do you have one of these to leave?

I don't.

 

[SSDD]

We'll be all dead from another 0.15DegC change in the MASTemperature in 12 years? Get a fucking grip or INVEST some research on your own.. You know virtually nothing about the projections or the scientific claims for GW futures...

Again, matter of scale. I'll probably be dead by the time it has an effect. That wasn't the point being made at all....

the point is, it is a problem, we need to do something about it..

Since you can't discuss the science upon which the claims are made, maybe you can discuss something a bit easier. Can you tell me, based on any sort of real research what the ideal temperature is for life on earth?

At this point you seem to be claiming that a 0.15 degree increase in temperature is going to cause havoc on a planet whose maximum and minimum temperatures on any given day spans 200 degrees.

What is the idea temperature for life on planet earth?

 

[SSDD]

Hundreds of billions to the oil companies, or 76 TRILLION dollars to the global warming fraudsters.

Yes, who benefits

You are hoist on your own petard of idiocy.

Yeah, you know what, you guys saying "It's too expensive to save the planet" is a bit much.

Do you have one of these to leave?
View attachment 260944

I don't.

Neither you nor climate science has yet produced any actual evidence that the planet needs to be saved from our CO2 production. If you want to spend trillions of dollars, don't you think some observed, measured evidence indicating a problem might be in order?

 

[JoeB131]

Since you can't discuss the science upon which the claims are made, maybe you can discuss something a bit easier. Can you tell me, based on any sort of real research what the ideal temperature is for life on earth?

The tempatures where the glaciers don't melt at an accelerated rate and the coral reefs aren't dying off...

But don't worry, you'll pop out of here and find some Koch-sucker propaganda site that will reassure you that this is no big deal and the earth really is flat.

 

[JoeB131]

Neither you nor climate science has yet produced any actual evidence that the planet needs to be saved from our CO2 production. If you want to spend trillions of dollars, don't you think some observed, measured evidence indicating a problem might be in order?

Again, 95% of climate scientists say it is..

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Yes, I'm sure the oil companies are telling you the truth.

Poor baby needs to fabricate strawmen to defend the propaganda he’s swallowed whole without thinking.

12 years! We got 12 years!

 

[westwall]

Hundreds of billions to the oil companies, or 76 TRILLION dollars to the global warming fraudsters.

Yes, who benefits

You are hoist on your own petard of idiocy.

Yeah, you know what, you guys saying "It's too expensive to save the planet" is a bit much.

Do you have one of these to leave?
View attachment 260944

I don't.

You declared the oil companies were going to make gazillions of dollars and thus they were the only ones who would benefit

I pointed out that the GW people stand to make orders of magnitude more money and they require us to believe their evidence which is manufactured by poorly designed computer models and the only way for us to know if they were successful in saving the planet is to live 100 more years.

It's the perfect scam

 

[Wuwei]

"storage" means that it can be accessed at any time, despite the surrounding conditions.

Does CO2 store energy and retain it?

Did you just make-up that definition of storage? You can't IGNORE the "surrounding conditions" and I told you that in the last post.. HOWEVER -- it does not mean that CO2 can't absorb an IR Photon from the Earth's surface and SOME TIME LATER (not the 0.003 nsec you spewed) RE-EMIT it to the surface..

It might gain or lose energy in the INTERIM between absorption and emission due to kinetics, but it CAN act as a "mirror" for thermal energy in the IR band to be "reflected" back to the surface.. It's about 50% likely to send it to the sky direction and about 50% likely to send it back to Earth.. That's the GHouse effect....

End of discussion...

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics. If it is simply storage and release as in phase change, then it's a non issue because it doesn't happen.

The way I see it is that above a few dozen meters, the equipartion principle keeps the vibrational states saturated (2/9 of the CO2 molecules are in the vibration state), and the atmosphere is in a local equilibrium.

Nearer the surface there is a constant IR influx that raises the percentage in the vibration state above 2/9 so that the atmosphere is not at equilibrium. As earth's surface IR continually creates new vibration states, collisions transfer that energy to the air molecules and raises the temperature near earth.

The percentage of elevated vibrations states is somewhat constant, but is a function of altitude because of the optical depth of 15 micron absorption. That creates a dynamic equilibrium.

Because of the absorption of earth's IR, the 15 micron IR intensity becomes exponentially less with altitude, there is a corresponding exponential drop in vibration percentage with altitude until a few dozen meters and the 2/9 percentage is reached and equilibrium occurs.

Storage doesn't enter this picture.


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"storage" means that it can be accessed at any time, despite the surrounding conditions.

Does CO2 store energy and retain it?

Did you just make-up that definition of storage? You can't IGNORE the "surrounding conditions" and I told you that in the last post.. HOWEVER -- it does not mean that CO2 can't absorb an IR Photon from the Earth's surface and SOME TIME LATER (not the 0.003 nsec you spewed) RE-EMIT it to the surface..

It might gain or lose energy in the INTERIM between absorption and emission due to kinetics, but it CAN act as a "mirror" for thermal energy in the IR band to be "reflected" back to the surface.. It's about 50% likely to send it to the sky direction and about 50% likely to send it back to Earth.. That's the GHouse effect....

End of discussion...

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics. If it is simply storage and release as in phase change, then it's a non issue because it doesn't happen.

The way I see it is that above a few dozen meters, the equipartion principle keeps the vibrational states saturated (2/9 of the CO2 molecules are in the vibration state), and the atmosphere is in a local equilibrium.

Nearer the surface there is a constant IR influx that raises the percentage in the vibration state above 2/9 so that the atmosphere is not at equilibrium. As earth's surface IR continually creates new vibration states, collisions transfer that energy to the air molecules and raises the temperature near earth.

The percentage of elevated vibrations states is somewhat constant, but is a function of altitude because of the optical depth of 15 micron absorption. That creates a dynamic equilibrium.

Because of the absorption of earth's IR, the 15 micron IR intensity becomes exponentially less with altitude, there is a corresponding exponential drop in vibration percentage with altitude until a few dozen meters and the 2/9 percentage is reached and equilibrium occurs.

Storage doesn't enter this picture.


.

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics.

Billy and SSDD claim that CO2 isn't a GHG or doesn't warm the atmosphere because it can't store the energy it absorbs from IR.

 

[westwall]

"storage" means that it can be accessed at any time, despite the surrounding conditions.

Does CO2 store energy and retain it?

Did you just make-up that definition of storage? You can't IGNORE the "surrounding conditions" and I told you that in the last post.. HOWEVER -- it does not mean that CO2 can't absorb an IR Photon from the Earth's surface and SOME TIME LATER (not the 0.003 nsec you spewed) RE-EMIT it to the surface..

It might gain or lose energy in the INTERIM between absorption and emission due to kinetics, but it CAN act as a "mirror" for thermal energy in the IR band to be "reflected" back to the surface.. It's about 50% likely to send it to the sky direction and about 50% likely to send it back to Earth.. That's the GHouse effect....

End of discussion...

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics. If it is simply storage and release as in phase change, then it's a non issue because it doesn't happen.

The way I see it is that above a few dozen meters, the equipartion principle keeps the vibrational states saturated (2/9 of the CO2 molecules are in the vibration state), and the atmosphere is in a local equilibrium.

Nearer the surface there is a constant IR influx that raises the percentage in the vibration state above 2/9 so that the atmosphere is not at equilibrium. As earth's surface IR continually creates new vibration states, collisions transfer that energy to the air molecules and raises the temperature near earth.

The percentage of elevated vibrations states is somewhat constant, but is a function of altitude because of the optical depth of 15 micron absorption. That creates a dynamic equilibrium.

Because of the absorption of earth's IR, the 15 micron IR intensity becomes exponentially less with altitude, there is a corresponding exponential drop in vibration percentage with altitude until a few dozen meters and the 2/9 percentage is reached and equilibrium occurs.

Storage doesn't enter this picture.


.

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics.

Billy and SSDD claim that CO2 isn't a GHG or doesn't warm the atmosphere because it can't store the energy it

"storage" means that it can be accessed at any time, despite the surrounding conditions.

Does CO2 store energy and retain it?

Did you just make-up that definition of storage? You can't IGNORE the "surrounding conditions" and I told you that in the last post.. HOWEVER -- it does not mean that CO2 can't absorb an IR Photon from the Earth's surface and SOME TIME LATER (not the 0.003 nsec you spewed) RE-EMIT it to the surface..

It might gain or lose energy in the INTERIM between absorption and emission due to kinetics, but it CAN act as a "mirror" for thermal energy in the IR band to be "reflected" back to the surface.. It's about 50% likely to send it to the sky direction and about 50% likely to send it back to Earth.. That's the GHouse effect....

End of discussion...

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics. If it is simply storage and release as in phase change, then it's a non issue because it doesn't happen.

The way I see it is that above a few dozen meters, the equipartion principle keeps the vibrational states saturated (2/9 of the CO2 molecules are in the vibration state), and the atmosphere is in a local equilibrium.

Nearer the surface there is a constant IR influx that raises the percentage in the vibration state above 2/9 so that the atmosphere is not at equilibrium. As earth's surface IR continually creates new vibration states, collisions transfer that energy to the air molecules and raises the temperature near earth.

The percentage of elevated vibrations states is somewhat constant, but is a function of altitude because of the optical depth of 15 micron absorption. That creates a dynamic equilibrium.

Because of the absorption of earth's IR, the 15 micron IR intensity becomes exponentially less with altitude, there is a corresponding exponential drop in vibration percentage with altitude until a few dozen meters and the 2/9 percentage is reached and equilibrium occurs.

Storage doesn't enter this picture.


.

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics.

Billy and SSDD claim that CO2 isn't a GHG or doesn't warm the atmosphere because it can't store the energy it absorbs from IR.

Is that what they are claiming? I felt that their point is that yes, CO2 is a GHG, but it doesn't operate the way the GW theory says it should. And, because it doesn't operate per the theory, the theory of global warming is wrong.

 

[Wuwei]

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics.

Billy and SSDD claim that CO2 isn't a GHG or doesn't warm the atmosphere because it can't store the energy it absorbs from IR.

They both know that near the surface CO2 absorbs 15 micron energy. They both know that CO2 does not hang on to that energy but loses it through collision. That leaves the question, where does the energy go? (Conservation of energy etc.)


.

 

[Wuwei]

Is that what they are claiming? I felt that their point is that yes, CO2 is a GHG, but it doesn't operate the way the GW theory says it should. And, because it doesn't operate per the theory, the theory of global warming is wrong.

I think they are claiming what Tod said, and they are also claiming that what you said is a result of the inability of CO2 storage. If they think that CO2 isn't a GHG or doesn't warm the atmosphere because it can't store the energy it absorbs from IR, that is absurd. It is a non-sequitur. However, I have no idea how they think.


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"storage" means that it can be accessed at any time, despite the surrounding conditions.

Does CO2 store energy and retain it?

Did you just make-up that definition of storage? You can't IGNORE the "surrounding conditions" and I told you that in the last post.. HOWEVER -- it does not mean that CO2 can't absorb an IR Photon from the Earth's surface and SOME TIME LATER (not the 0.003 nsec you spewed) RE-EMIT it to the surface..

It might gain or lose energy in the INTERIM between absorption and emission due to kinetics, but it CAN act as a "mirror" for thermal energy in the IR band to be "reflected" back to the surface.. It's about 50% likely to send it to the sky direction and about 50% likely to send it back to Earth.. That's the GHouse effect....

End of discussion...

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics. If it is simply storage and release as in phase change, then it's a non issue because it doesn't happen.

The way I see it is that above a few dozen meters, the equipartion principle keeps the vibrational states saturated (2/9 of the CO2 molecules are in the vibration state), and the atmosphere is in a local equilibrium.

Nearer the surface there is a constant IR influx that raises the percentage in the vibration state above 2/9 so that the atmosphere is not at equilibrium. As earth's surface IR continually creates new vibration states, collisions transfer that energy to the air molecules and raises the temperature near earth.

The percentage of elevated vibrations states is somewhat constant, but is a function of altitude because of the optical depth of 15 micron absorption. That creates a dynamic equilibrium.

Because of the absorption of earth's IR, the 15 micron IR intensity becomes exponentially less with altitude, there is a corresponding exponential drop in vibration percentage with altitude until a few dozen meters and the 2/9 percentage is reached and equilibrium occurs.

Storage doesn't enter this picture.


.

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics.

Billy and SSDD claim that CO2 isn't a GHG or doesn't warm the atmosphere because it can't store the energy it

"storage" means that it can be accessed at any time, despite the surrounding conditions.

Does CO2 store energy and retain it?

Did you just make-up that definition of storage? You can't IGNORE the "surrounding conditions" and I told you that in the last post.. HOWEVER -- it does not mean that CO2 can't absorb an IR Photon from the Earth's surface and SOME TIME LATER (not the 0.003 nsec you spewed) RE-EMIT it to the surface..

It might gain or lose energy in the INTERIM between absorption and emission due to kinetics, but it CAN act as a "mirror" for thermal energy in the IR band to be "reflected" back to the surface.. It's about 50% likely to send it to the sky direction and about 50% likely to send it back to Earth.. That's the GHouse effect....

End of discussion...

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics. If it is simply storage and release as in phase change, then it's a non issue because it doesn't happen.

The way I see it is that above a few dozen meters, the equipartion principle keeps the vibrational states saturated (2/9 of the CO2 molecules are in the vibration state), and the atmosphere is in a local equilibrium.

Nearer the surface there is a constant IR influx that raises the percentage in the vibration state above 2/9 so that the atmosphere is not at equilibrium. As earth's surface IR continually creates new vibration states, collisions transfer that energy to the air molecules and raises the temperature near earth.

The percentage of elevated vibrations states is somewhat constant, but is a function of altitude because of the optical depth of 15 micron absorption. That creates a dynamic equilibrium.

Because of the absorption of earth's IR, the 15 micron IR intensity becomes exponentially less with altitude, there is a corresponding exponential drop in vibration percentage with altitude until a few dozen meters and the 2/9 percentage is reached and equilibrium occurs.

Storage doesn't enter this picture.


.

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics.

Billy and SSDD claim that CO2 isn't a GHG or doesn't warm the atmosphere because it can't store the energy it absorbs from IR.

Is that what they are claiming? I felt that their point is that yes, CO2 is a GHG, but it doesn't operate the way the GW theory says it should. And, because it doesn't operate per the theory, the theory of global warming is wrong.

Is that what they are claiming?

They've claimed that CO2 can't warm the atmosphere (or the surface) because it loses energy by collision before it can re-emit the recently absorbed IR photon.

 

[westwall]

"storage" means that it can be accessed at any time, despite the surrounding conditions.

Does CO2 store energy and retain it?

Did you just make-up that definition of storage? You can't IGNORE the "surrounding conditions" and I told you that in the last post.. HOWEVER -- it does not mean that CO2 can't absorb an IR Photon from the Earth's surface and SOME TIME LATER (not the 0.003 nsec you spewed) RE-EMIT it to the surface..

It might gain or lose energy in the INTERIM between absorption and emission due to kinetics, but it CAN act as a "mirror" for thermal energy in the IR band to be "reflected" back to the surface.. It's about 50% likely to send it to the sky direction and about 50% likely to send it back to Earth.. That's the GHouse effect....

End of discussion...

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics. If it is simply storage and release as in phase change, then it's a non issue because it doesn't happen.

The way I see it is that above a few dozen meters, the equipartion principle keeps the vibrational states saturated (2/9 of the CO2 molecules are in the vibration state), and the atmosphere is in a local equilibrium.

Nearer the surface there is a constant IR influx that raises the percentage in the vibration state above 2/9 so that the atmosphere is not at equilibrium. As earth's surface IR continually creates new vibration states, collisions transfer that energy to the air molecules and raises the temperature near earth.

The percentage of elevated vibrations states is somewhat constant, but is a function of altitude because of the optical depth of 15 micron absorption. That creates a dynamic equilibrium.

Because of the absorption of earth's IR, the 15 micron IR intensity becomes exponentially less with altitude, there is a corresponding exponential drop in vibration percentage with altitude until a few dozen meters and the 2/9 percentage is reached and equilibrium occurs.

Storage doesn't enter this picture.


.

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics.

Billy and SSDD claim that CO2 isn't a GHG or doesn't warm the atmosphere because it can't store the energy it

"storage" means that it can be accessed at any time, despite the surrounding conditions.

Does CO2 store energy and retain it?

Did you just make-up that definition of storage? You can't IGNORE the "surrounding conditions" and I told you that in the last post.. HOWEVER -- it does not mean that CO2 can't absorb an IR Photon from the Earth's surface and SOME TIME LATER (not the 0.003 nsec you spewed) RE-EMIT it to the surface..

It might gain or lose energy in the INTERIM between absorption and emission due to kinetics, but it CAN act as a "mirror" for thermal energy in the IR band to be "reflected" back to the surface.. It's about 50% likely to send it to the sky direction and about 50% likely to send it back to Earth.. That's the GHouse effect....

End of discussion...

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics. If it is simply storage and release as in phase change, then it's a non issue because it doesn't happen.

The way I see it is that above a few dozen meters, the equipartion principle keeps the vibrational states saturated (2/9 of the CO2 molecules are in the vibration state), and the atmosphere is in a local equilibrium.

Nearer the surface there is a constant IR influx that raises the percentage in the vibration state above 2/9 so that the atmosphere is not at equilibrium. As earth's surface IR continually creates new vibration states, collisions transfer that energy to the air molecules and raises the temperature near earth.

The percentage of elevated vibrations states is somewhat constant, but is a function of altitude because of the optical depth of 15 micron absorption. That creates a dynamic equilibrium.

Because of the absorption of earth's IR, the 15 micron IR intensity becomes exponentially less with altitude, there is a corresponding exponential drop in vibration percentage with altitude until a few dozen meters and the 2/9 percentage is reached and equilibrium occurs.

Storage doesn't enter this picture.


.

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics.

Billy and SSDD claim that CO2 isn't a GHG or doesn't warm the atmosphere because it can't store the energy it absorbs from IR.

Is that what they are claiming? I felt that their point is that yes, CO2 is a GHG, but it doesn't operate the way the GW theory says it should. And, because it doesn't operate per the theory, the theory of global warming is wrong.

Is that what they are claiming?

They've claimed that CO2 can't warm the atmosphere (or the surface) because it loses energy by collision before it can re-emit the recently absorbed IR photon.

Ahhh, I missed that part evidently. We know CO2 can warm the atmosphere (but the atmosphere doesn't warm the planet) and we know that the back radiation can warm the land surface of the planet. It just can't warm the waters of the planet.

 

[SSDD]

Since you can't discuss the science upon which the claims are made, maybe you can discuss something a bit easier. Can you tell me, based on any sort of real research what the ideal temperature is for life on earth?

The tempatures where the glaciers don't melt at an accelerated rate and the coral reefs aren't dying off...

But we know that the glaciers have melted much further back than they are now within the past 10,000 years. As glaciers melt back, they are leaving settlements, and forests in their wake.

Recently a forest that has been beneath the Mendenhal Glacier in Alaska has been exposed as the glacier recedes...so we know that 1000 years ago, the glacier had receded to at least its present point long enough for a forest to grow...

Melting glaciers have uncovered forests in Switzerland which indicate that 4000 years ago, the Swiss Alps were mostly glacier free... and this sort of thing is happening wherever glaciers are receding...we are finding that a few thousand years ago, they had receded even further back than at present...this indicates that a few thousand years ago, that the earth was warmer than the present and the coral reefs didn't die then...what is killing them now is run off from farms and industry...not climate change..

But don't worry, you'll pop out of here and find some Koch-sucker propaganda site that will reassure you that this is no big deal and the earth really is flat.

You are the one supporting your position with opinion pieces that are little more than rumor...I don't make claims that I can't back up...

So would you like to try again?...what is the idea temperature for life on planet earth. How about an actual temperature range...and you might name a range that humans havens;t already lived in...the temperarue at present is, in case you didn't know, cooler than it has been for most of the past 10,000 years.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you just make-up that definition of storage? You can't IGNORE the "surrounding conditions" and I told you that in the last post.. HOWEVER -- it does not mean that CO2 can't absorb an IR Photon from the Earth's surface and SOME TIME LATER (not the 0.003 nsec you spewed) RE-EMIT it to the surface..

It might gain or lose energy in the INTERIM between absorption and emission due to kinetics, but it CAN act as a "mirror" for thermal energy in the IR band to be "reflected" back to the surface.. It's about 50% likely to send it to the sky direction and about 50% likely to send it back to Earth.. That's the GHouse effect....

End of discussion...

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics. If it is simply storage and release as in phase change, then it's a non issue because it doesn't happen.

The way I see it is that above a few dozen meters, the equipartion principle keeps the vibrational states saturated (2/9 of the CO2 molecules are in the vibration state), and the atmosphere is in a local equilibrium.

Nearer the surface there is a constant IR influx that raises the percentage in the vibration state above 2/9 so that the atmosphere is not at equilibrium. As earth's surface IR continually creates new vibration states, collisions transfer that energy to the air molecules and raises the temperature near earth.

The percentage of elevated vibrations states is somewhat constant, but is a function of altitude because of the optical depth of 15 micron absorption. That creates a dynamic equilibrium.

Because of the absorption of earth's IR, the 15 micron IR intensity becomes exponentially less with altitude, there is a corresponding exponential drop in vibration percentage with altitude until a few dozen meters and the 2/9 percentage is reached and equilibrium occurs.

Storage doesn't enter this picture.


.

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics.

Billy and SSDD claim that CO2 isn't a GHG or doesn't warm the atmosphere because it can't store the energy it

Did you just make-up that definition of storage? You can't IGNORE the "surrounding conditions" and I told you that in the last post.. HOWEVER -- it does not mean that CO2 can't absorb an IR Photon from the Earth's surface and SOME TIME LATER (not the 0.003 nsec you spewed) RE-EMIT it to the surface..

It might gain or lose energy in the INTERIM between absorption and emission due to kinetics, but it CAN act as a "mirror" for thermal energy in the IR band to be "reflected" back to the surface.. It's about 50% likely to send it to the sky direction and about 50% likely to send it back to Earth.. That's the GHouse effect....

End of discussion...

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics. If it is simply storage and release as in phase change, then it's a non issue because it doesn't happen.

The way I see it is that above a few dozen meters, the equipartion principle keeps the vibrational states saturated (2/9 of the CO2 molecules are in the vibration state), and the atmosphere is in a local equilibrium.

Nearer the surface there is a constant IR influx that raises the percentage in the vibration state above 2/9 so that the atmosphere is not at equilibrium. As earth's surface IR continually creates new vibration states, collisions transfer that energy to the air molecules and raises the temperature near earth.

The percentage of elevated vibrations states is somewhat constant, but is a function of altitude because of the optical depth of 15 micron absorption. That creates a dynamic equilibrium.

Because of the absorption of earth's IR, the 15 micron IR intensity becomes exponentially less with altitude, there is a corresponding exponential drop in vibration percentage with altitude until a few dozen meters and the 2/9 percentage is reached and equilibrium occurs.

Storage doesn't enter this picture.


.

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics.

Billy and SSDD claim that CO2 isn't a GHG or doesn't warm the atmosphere because it can't store the energy it absorbs from IR.

Is that what they are claiming? I felt that their point is that yes, CO2 is a GHG, but it doesn't operate the way the GW theory says it should. And, because it doesn't operate per the theory, the theory of global warming is wrong.

Is that what they are claiming?

They've claimed that CO2 can't warm the atmosphere (or the surface) because it loses energy by collision before it can re-emit the recently absorbed IR photon.

Ahhh, I missed that part evidently. We know CO2 can warm the atmosphere (but the atmosphere doesn't warm the planet) and we know that the back radiation can warm the land surface of the planet. It just can't warm the waters of the planet.

and we know that the back radiation can warm the land surface of the planet.

We do, but SSDD says that would violate the 2nd Law. Smart photons and one way only radiation.

 

[SSDD]

Neither you nor climate science has yet produced any actual evidence that the planet needs to be saved from our CO2 production. If you want to spend trillions of dollars, don't you think some observed, measured evidence indicating a problem might be in order?

Again, 95% of climate scientists say it is..

View attachment 260945

Based on what evidence. Surely there is some...lets see it.

 

[SSDD]

I lost track of the argument. Just what does the issue of CO2 storing or not storing energy have to do with atmospheric physics.

Billy and SSDD claim that CO2 isn't a GHG or doesn't warm the atmosphere because it can't store the energy it absorbs from IR.

They both know that near the surface CO2 absorbs 15 micron energy. They both know that CO2 does not hang on to that energy but loses it through collision. That leaves the question, where does the energy go? (Conservation of energy etc.)


.

You really can't figure out that it is conducted to the top of the atmosphere where it is then radiated out to space? Was that a mystery to you?